Empowering Change: How Men Can Support Women in the Fight for Equality

In the complex landscape of elections, where values and visions for the future are on the line, the role of allies can make all the difference. As we stand at the crossroads of progress and regression, the choice between Candidate A and Candidate B is stark. Candidate A pledges to safeguard women’s human rights, honoring the long journey of civil rights struggles, while Candidate B poses a threat to these hard-earned freedoms.

Understanding this pivotal moment can be made clearer by examining two illustrative voting tables. Now, women overwhelmingly support Candidate A with a 62% to 38% advantage (adjusted average from the most recent NBC poll), reflecting a commitment to their rights and future. In contrast, men blunt this advantage by favoring candidate B, leading by a 12% margin (56% to 44%) .

Men have a historical opportunity to significantly shift the current polling margin, which stands below 6%. If male voters choose to at least abstain from favoring the misogynist candidate, they would increase the total polling margin to at least 12%, actively demonstrating respect for women’s rights and efforts. This conscious decision helps create a united front for Candidate A, reinforcing the pursuit of equality and justice. Other issues, like economic and migration policies, should not be held above fundamental human rights for women.

Historically, the fight for women’s rights has been arduous, marked by milestones achieved through relentless advocacy and sacrifice. From suffrage to workplace equality and reproductive freedom, each victory has been a testament to resilience and solidarity. Now, more than ever, men have another opportunity to stand as allies in this journey. Even if some men find it challenging to fully endorse Candidate A, abstaining from lending support to Candidate B can prevent the erosion of rights and reinforce the collective quest for equality.

The concept of collaboration is rooted in understanding and action. It calls for men to actively listen to the concerns of their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters, and to recognize the insidious nature of misogyny that Candidate B’s disrespect for women represents. By consciously choosing not to support a candidate who threatens to dismantle the progress achieved, men can play a crucial role in shaping a future where equality is not just a distant ideal but a lived reality.

The call to action is clear: Men should stand with women in the fight for human rights and dignity. Voting for Candidate A, or at the very least, refusing to bolster the regressive policies of Candidate B can ensure that the path of progress remains unbroken, honoring the legacy of those who fought before us and paving the way for future generations.

Elections are not just about choosing a leader; it’s about choosing a future where equality reigns supreme. Let us make this choice wisely and collectively, as one unified voice for justice and human rights.

---

---

In today’s complex world, the language used to describe political and social phenomena can often be as convoluted as the issues themselves. Terms like “catch-22,” “gaslighting,” “sanewashing,” “sportswashing,” and “greenwashing” have emerged to encapsulate intricate concepts of deception and incoherence. Simplifying these terms into Basic English can provide clarity, making it easier for the public to grasp their significance. This approach is particularly relevant when examining the current political climate in the United States and how journalists cover these issues.

Simplifying Complex Concepts

At its core, Basic English aims to reduce language to its essentials, offering straightforward explanations for otherwise complex terms. For instance, a “catch-22” can be described as a “no-win situation,” while “gaslighting” becomes “making someone feel confused about what is real.” Such simplifications allow for broader understanding and accessibility, especially for those unfamiliar with nuanced language. They cut through the noise, offering direct insights into situations where deception and incoherence prevail.

Application in the U.S. Political Climate

The current political landscape in the United States is rife with examples where these simplified terms are relevant. Political discourse often involves convoluted narratives that can leave the public feeling confused or misled. In a world where misinformation is rampant, the need for clear and direct communication has never been more critical.

The Role of Journalists

Journalists play a pivotal role in navigating this landscape of deception and incoherence. Their responsibility is to convey factual truth with clarity and precision, translating complex political maneuvers into language that the average citizen can comprehend. By adopting a style akin to Basic English, journalists can demystify political jargon, providing the public with the tools needed to engage critically with the issues at hand.

However, the challenge lies in balancing simplicity with depth. While Basic English can make information more accessible, it risks oversimplifying issues, stripping them of necessary context and nuance. Journalists must therefore tread carefully, ensuring that their reporting remains comprehensive while still understandable.

Impact on Public Understanding and Discourse

The impact of using clear language to describe political deception and incoherence is profound. It empowers citizens, enabling them to engage in informed discourse and make decisions based on a true understanding of the issues. In an era where public trust in institutions is waning, transparency and clarity can help rebuild confidence in the democratic process.

Moreover, as media consumption becomes increasingly global, the use of simplified language can foster inclusivity, allowing non-native English speakers to participate in the conversation. This not only enriches the discourse but also promotes a more diverse exchange of ideas.

Employing Basic English to describe complex concepts of deception and incoherence can serve as a powerful tool in today’s political climate. It challenges the status quo, calling for transparency and accountability. As journalists continue to cover these issues, their commitment to clear and accessible language will be crucial in shaping an informed and engaged public.

---

• Sportswashing refers to the practice of using sports events or associations to improve a tarnished reputation or distract from negative attention, often related to human rights abuses, corruption, or other unethical practices. Governments or organizations may invest in hosting major sporting events, sponsoring teams, or acquiring sports clubs to project a positive image and divert attention from their controversial activities. This tactic leverages the popularity and positive associations of sports to cleanse or enhance the public perception of the entity involved.
• Greenwashing is a deceptive practice where a company or organization exaggerates or falsely claims its products, services, or policies are environmentally friendly. This is often done to capitalize on the growing consumer demand for sustainable and eco-friendly products. Companies may use misleading labels, advertising, or public relations campaigns to create an impression of environmental responsibility without making significant efforts to reduce their environmental impact. Essentially, it’s a way to appear “green” without actually implementing substantial environmental practices.
• Sanewashing is a term coined by Rebecca Solnit referring to the tendency of mainstream media to present irrational or incoherent behavior, particularly from political figures like Donald Trump, in a way that makes it appear more rational or coherent. This involves selectively quoting or summarizing statements to emphasize coherence, thereby masking the true nature of the rhetoric. Solnit argues that this practice hides the incoherence from the public unless they are directly listening or reading alternative media sources. Moreover, sanitizing Trump’s incoherence while highlighting Joe Biden’s lapses in coherence as a sign of aging and cognitive dysfunction would amount to journalistic malpractice.

Sanewashing, akin to “greenwashing” or “sportswashing,” makes incoherent speech appear more acceptable or normal. In journalism, this can lead to a form of gaslighting, where the audience is misled into believing that the behavior or statements are more sensible than they actually are. This can result in a distorted perception of reality, as the media sanitizes cognitive dissonance instead of reporting it accurately.

The term “gaslighting” originates from the 1938 play “Gas Light” by Patrick Hamilton, which was later adapted into films in the 1940s. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife into believing she is going insane by subtly altering their environment and insisting that she is mistaken or imagining things. One of his tactics involves dimming the gas lights in their home and then denying any change when his wife notices it.

The term “gaslighting” has since evolved to describe a form of psychological manipulation where the manipulator seeks to make the victim doubt their perceptions, memories, or sanity. The connection to “gas light” in the play is metaphorical, as the dimming of the lights symbolizes the deceptive tactics used to make someone question their reality. Thus, “gaslighting” has come to mean a deliberate act of deception intended to make someone doubt their own understanding or perception of events.

Critics of the sanewashing practice in journalism argue that it poses a threat to democracy by failing to hold public figures accountable for their incoherent or misleading statements. The media’s role in making sense of the world can inadvertently lead to this bias towards coherence, where journalists attempt to impose order on chaotic or nonsensical rhetoric. This can result in a misleading portrayal that fails to capture the true nature of the statements being made.

---

Cultural nuances for deception and sanitizing

Terms like “sanewashing,” “greenwashing,” and “sportswashing” add nuance to the concept of deception and sanitizing by highlighting specific contexts and mechanisms through which they occur.

1. Targeted Meaning: Each term specifies the type of deception and the context in which it occurs. For example, “greenwashing” specifically refers to environmental claims, while “sportswashing” relates to using sports to improve an image. This specificity helps convey the exact nature of the deception.
2. Cultural and Social Awareness: These terms often arise from cultural or social movements and reflect a collective awareness of certain deceptive practices. They resonate with audiences who are familiar with the issues and can quickly grasp the implications.

Added Value of Neologisms

1. Memorable and Catchy: Neologisms are often more memorable and can capture public attention more effectively than generic terms. They can become part of the cultural lexicon, making it easier to discuss complex issues.
2. Conveying Complexity: These terms often encapsulate complex ideas or practices in a single word, making it easier to communicate and discuss them without lengthy explanations.
3. Encouraging Discourse: By introducing new terms, these neologisms can spark discussions and debates, encouraging people to think critically about the issues they represent.

Similar to “Catch-22,” which conveys a specific type of dilemma with no escape, these terms provide a shorthand for complex situations. While not everyone may be familiar with the origin of “Catch-22,” those who are understand the depth of the predicament it describes.

“Catch-22” is a term that originates from Joseph Heller’s novel of the same name, published in 1961. The novel is set during World War II and follows the story of Captain John Yossarian, a U.S. Army Air Forces B-25 bombardier. The term “Catch-22” has since entered the English language to describe a specific type of dilemma or paradoxical situation where an individual cannot avoid a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules.

In the novel, “Catch-22” refers to a military rule that presents a no-win situation for airmen. The rule states that a pilot is considered insane if they willingly continue to fly dangerous combat missions, but if they make a formal request to be removed from duty, it demonstrates their sanity and thus makes them ineligible to be relieved from duty. This creates a paradox where pilots cannot escape their dangerous assignments, a bureaucratic bind highlighting the absurdity and futility of their situation.

Potential Downsides

1. Cultural Exclusivity: Neologisms that arise from specific cultural contexts, like Hollywood or Western media, can indeed be exclusionary. They may not be immediately understood by non-native speakers or those outside the cultural sphere where the term originated.
2. Barrier to Understanding: For global audiences, these terms can create a barrier to understanding, requiring additional explanation or context that might not be readily available.
3. Cultural Imperialism: There’s a risk that such terms can contribute to cultural imperialism, where one culture’s language and concepts dominate and overshadow others, potentially marginalizing diverse perspectives.

Balancing Act

While these terms can be exclusionary, they also serve important functions in language:

1. Precision and Nuance: They provide precise language for discussing specific phenomena, which can be valuable in academic, media, and public discourse.
2. Cultural Exchange: Over time, as these terms are adopted and adapted by different cultures, they can facilitate cultural exchange and understanding, enriching the global lexicon.
3. Awareness and Advocacy: They often emerge from social movements and can help raise awareness about important issues, encouraging global conversations.

To balance these aspects, it’s important to:

• Provide Context: When using such terms, offering explanations or translations can help bridge cultural gaps.
• Encourage Inclusivity: Being mindful of diverse audiences and striving for language that is accessible to all can foster inclusivity.
• Adapt and Evolve: Language is dynamic, and as these terms spread, they can evolve to reflect broader, more inclusive meanings.

Ultimately, while culture-specific neologisms can be challenging, they also offer opportunities for richer, more nuanced communication when used thoughtfully.

---

Basic English Facilitates DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)

Basic English is a simplified version of the English language, developed by Charles Kay Ogden in the 1920s. It consists of a basic vocabulary of around 850 words, designed to cover everyday communication needs. The idea was to make English easier to learn and use, especially for non-native speakers, by focusing on essential words and simple grammar.

1. Accessibility: By reducing the complexity of the language, Basic English makes it more accessible to a wider range of people, including those with limited educational backgrounds or those learning English as a second language.
2. Inclusivity: Simplified language can help break down communication barriers, allowing more people to participate in global conversations and access information. This inclusivity is crucial for fostering a sense of belonging among diverse groups.
3. Equity: Basic English can level the playing field by providing a common linguistic foundation. It reduces the advantage that native speakers might have in international settings, promoting more equitable communication.
4. Cultural Exchange: By facilitating easier communication, Basic English can encourage cultural exchange and understanding, helping people from different backgrounds connect and collaborate.
5. Global Communication: In a world where English is often used as a lingua franca, a simplified version can enhance mutual understanding and cooperation among world citizens, supporting global initiatives and problem-solving.

While Basic English has its limitations, such as lacking the nuance and richness of full English, its adoption in certain contexts supports DEI efforts by making communication more straightforward and inclusive.

Translating these terms into Basic English involves simplifying their meanings to convey the core concepts without using complex vocabulary:

1. Catch-22: A situation where you can’t win because of conflicting rules or conditions. You might say “no-win situation” or “stuck because of rules.”
2. Gaslighting: Making someone doubt their own thoughts or feelings. In Basic English, you could say “making someone feel confused about what is real.”
3. Sanewashing: Making something that is not sensible seem normal. You might describe it as “making nonsense look normal.”
4. Sportswashing: Using sports to make a bad image look good. In simpler terms, “using sports to hide corruption.”
5. Greenwashing: Pretending to be good for the environment when not really. You could say “pretending to be eco-friendly.”

---

Simplified explanations capture the essence of each term using straightforward language and may help to bridge the divide between rural and urban America, as well as avoid cultural exclusivity.

---

Just as clean air and water are essential for life, politics free of misinformation — and outright lies — is crucial for preserving democracy. Accountability mechanisms must ensure that political figures are answerable for deceit, with independent oversight by subject matter experts. Civic education is vital in cultivating an informed electorate capable of discerning truth from falsehood. Active citizen engagement is crucial for challenging deception and fostering truthfulness in politics.

While this argument may sound utopian, resignation to deceit is far worse. We must advocate for a political environment where truth guides governance. Striving for truth is essential for maintaining a vibrant and healthy democratic future.

---

A New Ecology of Democracy

One of the merits of Jedediah Purdy’s “Two Cheers for Politics” is that he does not take democracy for granted. He knows it needs new forms of defense, and he challenges the political structures we once thought were working just fine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/09/23/refreshing-argument-that-democracy-can-be-repaired-by-us/

Jedediah Purdy presents several key arguments about democracy in the United States:

1. Introduction to Democracy’s Challenges: Discusses the current state of democracy, its perceived fragility, and the need for renewed understanding and defense.
2. Critique of Political Structures: Analyzes the flaws in existing political systems, focusing on the Senate, electoral college, and Supreme Court, and how they hinder true democratic representation.
3. Proposals for Constitutional Change: Explores the need for easier constitutional amendments and regular revisions to align governance with contemporary public will.
4. The Role of Social Solidarity: Emphasizes the importance of social trust and equality in sustaining democracy, critiquing economic inequality and concentrated power.
5. Historical and Philosophical Context: Provides a tour through political philosophy, highlighting thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and others, to frame democracy as both a historical and evolving concept.
6. Vision for Democratic Revival: Concludes with a hopeful vision for democracy, advocating for collective action and social reconstruction as means to shape a better future.

Purdy presents a compelling case for enhancing democracy through social solidarity and constitutional revisions. A critical element that would further strengthen his argument is the integration of a meritocratic approach (wise subject matter experts) within democratic systems. This addition could address the tension between informed and uninformed opinions, ensuring that democratic consensus is both equitable and informed.

Democracy thrives on the principle of equality, granting every citizen a voice. Yet, this egalitarian approach often overlooks the disparity in knowledge and expertise among individuals. By incorporating meritocracy, we could ensure that policy decisions are guided by those with the necessary expertise, balancing the weight of opinions so that well-informed voices are heard alongside popular sentiment.

The potential benefits of a meritocratic democracy include more efficient governance and informed decision-making. Experts in relevant fields could provide insights that lead to policies reflecting both public will and practical considerations. This could help prevent the pitfalls of populism, where emotionally charged but potentially uninformed decisions gain traction.

However, integrating meritocracy into democracy is not without challenges. The primary concern is maintaining the democratic ethos of equal representation while acknowledging expertise. This can be overcome by creating advisory bodies composed of experts whose role is to inform legislative processes. These bodies would work alongside elected officials to draft and refine policy proposals, ensuring they are both scientifically sound and publicly accountable.

Moreover, education plays a vital role in this model, as an informed electorate is essential for discerning the value of expert advice. Investing in education systems that promote critical thinking and civic knowledge can empower citizens to engage more meaningfully in democratic processes.

In conclusion, adding a meritocratic dimension to democracy would enhance its effectiveness, aligning decision-making with both wise expertise and public interest. By carefully balancing the input of wise experts with broad-based democratic participation, we can create a system that is both fair and functional, paving the way for a more robust democratic future.

---

Those who would reject Purdy’s radical proposal still need to grapple with the crisis of representation that our Constitution creates for democracy. To look only at our presidential election system, a flip of about 32,000 votes in three states and one congressional district would have given victory in the electoral college to the candidate who lost the popular vote by more than 7 million ballots. That problem is not going away.

–https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/09/23/refreshing-argument-that-democracy-can-be-repaired-by-us/

---

Dear Scientific American friends,

Hot takes are everywhere these days, but informed perspectives, backed by expertise and evidence, seem harder than ever to sift out of the modern cacophony. We’re here to help. Instead of pundits pushing their personal politics, Scientific American’s Opinion page provides you with informed views on the major questions of the day.

With the presidential election bearing down on the U.S., for example, a little science-based perspective on the political moment seems in order. Scientific American’s editors offered readers a thorough look at the dangers to science posed by Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for former president Donald Trump’s potential second administration. Across federal agencies, the plan “would sabotage science-based policies that address climate change, the environment, abortion, health care access, technology and education,” they found. Along those lines, a historian of concentration camps looked at the frightening implications of the mass deportations promised at July’s Republican National Convention. And when President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race, an expert on aging and culture told our readers that age was now the youngest form of identity politics, one that will drive the next generation’s voting decisions.

The Supreme Court’s politics also drew our attention. Our editors criticized the Roberts Court’s decisions on everything from abortion to homelessness to water for sidelining science in favor of partisan outcomes. Additionally, a legal sociologist found the Court had engaged in “whitewashing American racial history” in a decision on affirmative action in university admissions that equated students in a highly educated demographic with people harmed by the history of enslavement and Jim Crow.

We’re about more than politics, of course; see below for some other recent big stories. And this e-mail is just the start of what Scientific American’s Opinion section offers you in your inbox: smart and thoughtful commentary from experts in a range of scientific fields.

If you have any suggestions or questions, feel free to contact me anytime at feedback@sciam.com. And check back on Scientific American for more informed opinions on everything and everywhere, from the voting booth to the edges of our imagination.

Dan Vergano
Senior Opinion Editor
Scientific American

---

News over Nonsense

At Scientific American, we’re dedicated to delivering the facts—thoughtful analysis, expert perspectives, and the stories behind today’s most important scientific breakthroughs.

We feel a responsibility to deliver information you can trust about the science impacting our world. Our Opinion page takes on the critical issues of our time, from the powerful effects of civic engagement on a local level to the lasting impact of Supreme Court decisions on science and society.

---

---

---

When Reagan quipped in 1986, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help,’ ” he was signaling the escalation of the conservative antigovernment movement.

The Republican Party signed on and hasn’t let go. Over the following decades, that message has become ever more entrenched. Trump and his MAGA movement have been occupied since 2015 not only with spreading incessant lies but also with disbursing a corrosive loss of faith, leaving advances in modern science as one of many casualties.

–https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/opinion/republicans-science-denial.html

---